Re: Coronavirus
 

So, a press release written by someone who doesn't understand how journalists work, picked up by a journalist who doesn't understand how science works.

We're all screwed. (I read somewhere)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree, but I don’t think there’s anything sinister in the reporting. I don’t think anyone intended for the press release to be used that way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It looks like the 90% protection rate is established from a sample of participants in the trial that is too small to justify headlining the 90% figure. Most participants seem to have been given the dosage regimen that resulted in 62% protection. Nevertheless the scientists appear to be sufficiently confident they can replicate 90% protection in a large trial of that regimen that that’s what they really want to talk about this morning.

The BBC original report however is what almost inevitably happens when you give technical press releases to the non specialist, probably quite junior hacks running the graveyard shift. The word “disappointment” shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the page. That wasn’t in the Oxford press release and isn’t attributed to anyone else who might actually know what they were talking about. It is however the sort of interpretive commentary the BBC is very good at - suggesting what people should think about the news rather than just telling it as it is. Try watching any live to-camera report on the Six or the Ten and see how many of them sign off with an unattributed suggestion as to how “many” will react to what’s just been said.

And I won’t go off on one about the editors’ code of conduct that makes clear the importance of clear distinctions between a journalist reporting the news and a journalist offering opinion or commentary ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Chris I'm not in disagreement here I just think they're crap and seeking clicks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I can as I drink Cider or one of my 18 different bottle of vodka.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He drinks a lager drink, he drinks a cider drink, he sings the songs that remind him of the good times...

Sorry Maggy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The AZ press release - https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...zd1222hlr.html gives a little more detail on the statistical significance;

The 'p' value of <0.0001 is pretty compelling, roughly saying that there is a 0.01% chance of these results happening by chance. The release correctly says that this is still preliminary data with more to come. Without challenge testing (deliberately infecting trial subjects with SARS-COV2 to see what happens) there needs to be a lot of people in a Phase III trial.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given that the Flu Vaccine is about 50% at best, I'll take 70% as being good.

Im sure I read somewhere that you only need about 70% of the population immune for a virus to stop spreading (the infamous herd immunity :)).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hey, that's enough of the banter. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had an important looking letter today from the NHS. . . they're now almost begging me to have a flu jab.

Included in the envelope was a second letter, this one informing me that sending letters out was costing the NHS money it could use elsewhere . . .

well excuse me, but if you'd taken notice the first, second, and third, even the fourth time I said I didn't want one, you wouldn't be wasting your bloody money.

I suspect Flu is transmitted in a very similar way to Covid-19 . . and I'm already taking rather stringent measures to prevent that, thanks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just got a text from our Surgery for a flu jab (eligible because I'm between 50-65), and I'll be booking it once I've had the 2nd jab (3rd December) from the COVID vaccine test I'm part of (there has to be a 7 day gap between the 2nd jab and getting a flu jab).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good luck. :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had my flu jab on Saturday just. :)

Also was offered the pneumococcal (sp.) jab so had that too.

Both in my left arm as I'm only 9 weeks past major surgery on my right arm.